D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?

[Ovinomancer]

The catch is that in essence this nsrrows the reach of expertise even more because it would be useless or very ill advised to take it with any skill one could reasonably expect assistance on - ie advantage to be available by common means.

So, con man who works with partner - dont expertise deception. Much of the time you can have help. Anything eligable for working together goes to the bottom of the expertise pile in very short order.

After 3rd level EA lets you give advantage on skill checks pretty freely. Which means again we have a rogue ability just basically trumped all over by a low level spell on a lot of spell lists.

To some that might be rhe goal but to me, nah.

So, expertise should then be designed with the assumption it's trivial to get advantage? That's even more distorting. Your argument cuts in both directions.

 

[bedir than]

My biggest problem with removing the doubling for Expertise is that any DM that's doing that is telling me that Fighter and Rogues are useless in their world. They would never consider removing spells that solve similar problems, but the desire to nerf the mundane means that you want a world without the mundane.

 

[Leatherhead]

My biggest problem with removing the doubling for Expertise is that any DM that's doing that is telling me that Fighter and Rogues are useless in their world. They would never consider removing spells that solve similar problems, but the desire to nerf the mundane means that you want a world without the mundane.

An interesting sentiment, if not for two things:

Fighters don't get Expertise*
The entirely non-mundane Bard does.



* Except the PDK, but the PDK is the Fighter Subclass that everyone is trying to forget happened. Seriously, it wasn't even on the last class satisfaction survey.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My biggest problem with removing the doubling for Expertise is that any DM that's doing that is telling me that Fighter and Rogues are useless in their world. They would never consider removing spells that solve similar problems, but the desire to nerf the mundane means that you want a world without the mundane.

This is a pretty specious argument that relies on the belief that anyone not playing the way you prefer is out to punish players. It's specious in that any spell that would obviate a non-expertised skill pretty much obviated expertised skills already. Although, I'm curious, which skills do you think are completely obviated by which spells that aren't already completely obviated by spells regardless of expertise?

The second part, where you assume bad intentions, is a common assumption these days of anyone that disagrees with you must be a horrible person. You should try and do better.`

My main problem with expertise (and with reliable talent on top) is that the system makes absolutely no mention that the recommended advice for running the game becomes obsolete at an unexpectedly early point. Those mechanics could be fine, if the system actually was designed to accommodate them and pushed into a new regime of challenges. But, it doesn't. It still recommends DCs in the 10-20 range as the go-to, and rightly so for everything except expertised or reliable skills -- it's a good benchmark for skills in general. But expertise throws that out the window by trivializing the advice for running the game and requires a DM to both understand the issue as a paradigm change AND be capable of adapting to continue to run a fun game despite that regime change. That's a heavy burden to place on the DM for a system artifact. Hence why I've responded to the claims that a "good" DM can solve this because it's not a problem/not a system problem. I wonder, though, why does it take a good DM to overcome something that isn't a problem?

But, back to your complaint, if you really need to have huge numerical bonuses to shine against casters, that speaks to another system problem and doesn't defend expertise. I love fighters and rogues. I hate how expertise distorts the game. There are no spells that actually let you find and disarm traps, or pick pockets, or convince someone to your side longterm, so, I don't understand where you're coming from by saying that without expertise rogues and fighters don't have a place in the game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This seems like a pretty simple and system consistent solution; for those reasons I like it better than Expertise being +2.

I may have missed discussion of this idea from one of the earlier posts in the thread, but do any of you see any obviously bad consequences of making this rule change in a game?

Advantage and Disadvantage are the primary tools by which the DM applies temporary circumstantial adjustments. If you're trying to climb a DC 15 wall, and it's raining right now, then it's DC 15 with Disadvantage. If you have exactly the right tool for the job (like a crowbar), then you might get Advantage on a check.

That's why persistent Advantage is otherwise rare in the system - it negates a lot of other mechanics.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Advantage and Disadvantage are the primary tools by which the DM applies temporary circumstantial adjustments. If you're trying to climb a DC 15 wall, and it's raining right now, then it's DC 15 with Disadvantage. If you have exactly the right tool for the job (like a crowbar), then you might get Advantage on a check.

That's why persistent Advantage is otherwise rare in the system - it negates a lot of other mechanics.

It does, however, do a good job of modelling the persistent advantage of being an expert -- you're very unlikely to fail simple or moderate checks, and much better able to make hard ones. That you can't get more buffs on top of your numerical double dip is a selling point -- as I said to @5ekyu, the argument about getting advantage cuts against the RAW expertise as much as it does against the expertise as advantage.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It does, however, do a good job of modelling the persistent advantage of being an expert -- you're very unlikely to fail simple or moderate checks, and much better able to make hard ones.

That's no different than having a +2 bonus, or a +6 or whatever - you're unlikely to fail easy checks, and more likely to succeed at hard ones. And since being an expert is a persistent condition, it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the same mechanic used to model temporary circumstantial variables.

Except that it (arguably) messes up the math. As we've seen in this thread, some people consider the infallible rogue who trivializes certain challenges to be a feature rather than a bug. So, while they could have decided to use Advantage as the expertise mechanic, if they wanted to "solve" that bug, there would have been just as many people complaining about it either way. So they erred on the side of consistency, and letting rogues have something nice for once.

 

[5ekyu]

That's no different than having a +2 bonus, or a +6 or whatever - you're unlikely to fail easy checks, and more likely to succeed at hard ones. And since being an expert is a persistent condition, it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the same mechanic used to model temporary circumstantial variables.

Except that it (arguably) messes up the math. As we've seen in this thread, some people consider the infallible rogue who trivializes certain challenges to be a feature rather than a bug. So, while they could have decided to use Advantage as the expertise mechanic, if they wanted to "solve" that bug, there would have been just as many people complaining about it either way. So they erred on the side of consistency, and letting rogues have something nice for once.

yup, as just one for instance, at 5th level, the difference between expertise double prof and expertise gives advantage is:

Assume +3 stat and +3 prof

Expertise as is - +9 total - cannot fail an easy task.
Expertise as advantage - +6 total - can fail easy task a tad over 2% of the time.

but of course, since advantage on skill checks by 5th level is pretty easy to get, the expertise is rather meh as advantage.

to me this kind of a change is to me a "fix" only in the veterinary sense of the word "fix"

I myself do not have a problem but if Gms haven't got a way to manage it and want to i again suggest changing it to give it a more non-mechanical element - maybe making it take extra time to get expertise bonus - maybe going with another flavor of the player choice of "setback with progress" or "success at cost" where they get the bonus after a roll fails but a setback must occur . Then, when they get reliable talent they get an auto-10 plus the bonus if the roll fails.

This kind of "setback" or "at cost" mechanics should i would think be appealing to those who see the problem as "boring" and not one of power or balance.

Example:

Expertise: With the skills indicated, if a skill check fails you may elect to take a setback determined by the Gm to add your proficiency bonus again and see if you succeed."

Reliable talent: With the skills indicated, on a failed skill check you may choose to take it as a success with setback determined by the GM instead of a no progress failure.."

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's no different than having a +2 bonus, or a +6 or whatever - you're unlikely to fail easy checks, and more likely to succeed at hard ones. And since being an expert is a persistent condition, it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the same mechanic used to model temporary circumstantial variables.

Except that it (arguably) messes up the math. As we've seen in this thread, some people consider the infallible rogue who trivializes certain challenges to be a feature rather than a bug. So, while they could have decided to use Advantage as the expertise mechanic, if they wanted to "solve" that bug, there would have been just as many people complaining about it either way. So they erred on the side of consistency, and letting rogues have something nice for once.

It is a pretty large difference. A straight + doesn't quite have the same effect as advantage, and also increase the top DC that can be reached. It also interacts with reliable talent to increase the floor for the roll. Advantage has a big effect for low d20 rolls, but less for high ones. A straight + is a flat effect.

And advantage doesn't mess up the math, it uses different math. And, at at 9th level, with a max stat, your RAW expertise is +13 to that skill (+5 stat, +4 prof, +4 expertise), my method is +9 with advantage. Both can't fail DC 10, your fails DC 15 5% of the time (on a 1), and mine fails 6.25% of the time. Pretty much the same. On DC 20 checks, RAW fails 30% of the time, mine 25% of the time -- my way is better. At DC 25, RAW fails 55%, mine 56.25% of the time -- we've closed the arc. Essentially, my method provided better results at this level for DCs between 16 and 24 than RAW does. You do have a better chance of success at DC 30 checks, as via RAW you can hit that on 17+ but it's impossible for a +9, but I'm more than okay for leaving legendary skill checks for higher than Tier II. YMMV.

Until you run the math, you're likely to misrepresent the impact. My method actually improves chances of success for medium to hard checks while leaving easy checks mostly alone. What it doesn't do it add number porn to the dice and amp up ability to well past legendary stats just to make easy tasks reliably beatable. It gets the 'goal' of expertise but skips the distortion of the RAW method.

You are more than welcome to hew to RAW. It's workable, albeit it requires a DM to recognize and change how the game plays to accommodate the ability by changing how she challenges the PCs. Quite often, since this effect isn't called out in the rules and is a bit surprising when it shows up rather stealthily, a DM will make a few bad calls before getting it right, if she ever does. But, still, there's nothing horribly wrong with the RAW. I like 5e well enough that I'm picking on things that are not huge issues because they're stamped out most of the huge issues already. Still, I'd prefer that expertise work a good bit more elegantly within the good system of 5e than just another number plus that distorts the possible to provide protection against failing the mundane. I think expertise does this better than the RAW system. You're not wrong to disagree with me, but I'm also not wrong to disagree with you. We're decidedly in the realm of preference. I would like to point out that if expertise was initially advantage and not double prof bonus, you'd not likely be complaining that it doesn't work as advertised.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is a pretty large difference. A straight + doesn't quite have the same effect as advantage, and also increase the top DC that can be reached. It also interacts with reliable talent to increase the floor for the roll. Advantage has a big effect for low d20 rolls, but less for high ones. A straight + is a flat effect.

It's still "less likely to fail easy checks, and more likely to succeed on hard checks"; they both do that, so it's just a matter of degree and consistency.

And, at at 9th level, with a max stat, your RAW expertise is +13 to that skill (+5 stat, +4 prof, +4 expertise), my method is +9 with advantage.

By setting your argument around level 9, it takes Reliable Talent out of the equation, which has been consistently cited in this thread as part of the big problem. Without Reliable Talent, a level 20 rogue would still be able to fail DC 20 checks, and most complaints go away.

You are more than welcome to hew to RAW. It's workable, albeit it requires a DM to recognize and change how the game plays to accommodate the ability by changing how she challenges the PCs.

Now you're assuming that the DM is intentionally trying to challenge their PCs, which should not be taken as a given. If you don't approach the game from that angle, then there's less of an issue with letting a PC breeze through skill checks that would challenge most characters.

I would like to point out that if expertise was initially advantage and not double prof bonus, you'd not likely be complaining that it doesn't work as advertised.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what I did with expertise in my own hack of 5E, because I realized that I could account for circumstantial modifiers by adjusting the DC. I also give elves Advantage on Perception checks.